analyze_component

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the outputs in detail (summaries, call graph, globals, etc.) and implies read-only analysis without side effects. It could explicitly state non-destructive behavior but is sufficiently transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all outputs and the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema preview, the description enumerates five distinct analysis outputs, fully covering the tool's return payload. The two required parameters are clearly documented in the schema, making the tool complete and usable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (addrs, instance_id). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for schema-rich tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies exactly what the tool does: analyzing a group of related functions, listing outputs like per-function summaries, internal call graph, shared globals, classification, and shared strings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'analyze_function' which handles single functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly directs use to multi-function analysis rather than single-function (sibling 'analyze_function'). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.